| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller | Analyst |
| Ms. Karol A. Kennedy | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. Allen L. Raub | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he enlisted in the Army because a recruiter told him that he would be sent to Vietnam.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 July 1972, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Field Wireman). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2.
On 15 December 1972, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 7 to 13 December 1972. His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $55.00 pay per month for 2 months and a reduction to pay grade E-1.
On 6 September 1973, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant of three specifications of being AWOL from 1 January to 13 March 1973, from 24 April to 14 June 1973 and from 2 July to 3 September 1973. However, the particulars are missing from his case.
In September 1973, a mental and a physical examination found the applicant fit for retention.
On 10 September 1973, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily without any coercion requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant acknowledged, that he understood the elements of the offense charged. The applicant waived further rehabilitation and was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He acknowledged that he understood, that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but decline to do so.
On 12 September 1973, the company commander, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. The commander’s decision was based on the applicant’s reluctance to adjust to military service.
On 27 September 1973, the Commanding General approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate. On 17 October 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade
E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a UD. He completed 8 months and 23 days of creditable active military service.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. An undesirable discharge is normally considered appropriate.
On 27 February 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant's request for an upgrade of his discharge.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. There is no indication that the request was made under coercion, duress or that his rights were violated in any way.
3. The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
4. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__KAK__ __MHM__ __ALR__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002067678 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002067678 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (UD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1973/10/17 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chp10. . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A70.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.7000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086797C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded. While the applicant did serve seven months in Vietnam, that in itself is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000303C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded. On 24 November 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083556C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080865C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040008698C070208
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board exercise sound equitable principles regarding the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge and take into consideration all of the factors associated with his service. There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083239C070215
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 13 December 1968, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 4 years, for assignment to Korea, a reenlistment bonus (amount unknown), his previous MOS and in pay grade E-4. The Board noted the applicant served in Vietnam prior to the period of service under review and he received an honorable discharge for that period of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075794C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 21 July 1989, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgraded discharge. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004327C070205
The applicant requests that his undesirable discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He also states that his discharge should have been upgraded 6 months after he was discharged. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071659C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He further states that he served two tours in Vietnam, received many awards during his 7 years of service, and was promotable to the pay grade of E-6. He was transferred to Vietnam on 26 August 1970.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072055C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: